nationfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Regaliorum/Sandpit
Literal translation of Zandbak? Why not use playing gorund? Pierlot McCrooke 09:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Reform proposal I have to be against the citizen change Pierlot McCrooke 09:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC) I would also suggest the following:Abolishing states and governed towns. If you want that only congress can decide laws Pierlot McCrooke 09:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Working on it ; some people want to see more clear citizen regulations, as do I. I like the word 'sandpit'. I picked it up in this jolly song from which I can't remember the name. 09:42, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::But there are many parties that want a 25 edits-requirement for citizenship. Why do you wanta 100-requirement? Pierlot McCrooke 09:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I thought that 50 useful edits was to vague and thus we should make it more concrete. But anyone can easily make just 50 edits. I guess I don't mind a change. What about '50 edits' (just dropping the useful?) 09:52, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think 50 edits is good Pierlot McCrooke 09:54, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::It isn't too hard to make 50 edits in 4 days, is it? I hope you like the other proposals? 09:56, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I like them, only i want to know the role of Second Camber Pierlot McCrooke 09:59, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I will not propose any changes to the Congress' working. We keep the current system where proposals are made in the First Chamber (with some debate and minor changes) and then voted in the Second Chamber. 10:02, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::You once said you wanted that Second Chamber should be state representation. I think that should be done, because otherwise states would be useless if this sandpit would be passed Pierlot McCrooke 10:05, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I was indeed a supporter of such a system, but I now question if that would make Lovia more democratic? The main goal of this 'sandpit proposal' is to get more transparency and less bureaucracy. More democracy (Congress) and less accumulation of power (PM/King). 10:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::If we dont propose such a system then i think states are useless and need to be abolished Pierlot McCrooke 10:18, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::You remember this big discussion about reform, right? Where all parties had different ideas? If we do to much at once, nothing will happen at all. I suggest that we first vote what is on my sandpitpage and later on, we can vote changes that aren't this widely supported. What do you say? 10:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Political analysis What is my group? Pierlot McCrooke 18:33, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I asked myself the same question. You have been with so many different parties it is rather hard to make out. Based upon what I know, I'd put you in the liberal-centrist one. What do you think yourself? 18:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Maybe you could create a neutralist group Pierlot McCrooke 18:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I could, but that wouldn't tell me much, would it. You aren't the only one who isn't on the list if that is a comfort? 18:46, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just do it Pierlot McCrooke 18:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::As I said, I could add an 'indecisive' list but it wouldn't help my analysis. This oversight is only part of a bigger issue: what will be the future course of the Progressive Democrats? 18:49, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Put me in the group then you net requetsed (Liberal centriust)) Pierlot McCrooke 18:51, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::::You have indeed been in that sphere for most of the time. 18:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Quite well I must say your outline is quite perfected. I am somehow glad not to be in the list. If you would have to put me in there - which I think you shouldn't - I probably lean towards the liberal-centrists. In fact, my viewpoints can be compared most to those of Arthur and Lars. Second come Yuri, Andy, the LDers and Oos Wes, I suppose. What I wanted to say: nice outline! 08:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :Do you really think you and I have so much in common? There sure are some common influences like Richard Dawkins and Albert Camus (who is really good btw). But how about Sartre, Marcuse, Kruithof, ... ?? I'm afraid I've slipped of too far to the left end of the spectrum. 08:47, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Sartre and Marcuse are also part of my background, you know! In fact, I'm quite existentialist. Still, this was not my point. What I was saying, is not that our political backgrounds match (they don't), but that the results of our ideologies into policy ressemble in some ways. Same with Andy, who's on the other side. He is too libertarian for me ideologically speaking, but the outcome of his thoughts does ressemble mine. And please don't forget, Yuri, that my political opinion has become way less classical liberalist last Summer, and has become more social (though not socialist) since last Summer and Autumn, having been introduced to all kinds of leftist theorists. 08:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :::I can't speak for all educations, but mine sure is a 'stoomcursus' leftist thought. I myself have moved away from dialectical materialism (marx and creative re-interpretations) towards views based more on ideas, perception and human consciousness. 08:58, February 23, 2010 (UTC) Political currrents Very interesting, though, I am missing the name of our beloved King... --Lars Washington 10:49, March 9, 2010 (UTC) :The King ought to be neutral, but I doubt that is possible. I know the king well and am (almost completely) sure he would be in the part about liberals. Culturally and normative he would be a progressive liberal, but when it comes to economy and such he slides up to the conservative side. Respecting his supposed neutrality, I'll ad him in a foot note. 11:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC) Please note LOWIA is absolutely not anti-monarchy. We are even in favor of the automatic seat of the king in the government. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 20:54, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :I'm updating it now. I know LOWIA isn't. 20:59, March 12, 2010 (UTC) ::You're right :P Now I need to go, need my night's sleep :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 21:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC) :::No, I'm left. Just joking, goodbye and sweet dreams! 21:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Ha Funny IGP is so far out they have there own Zip-Code.Funny.Marcus Villanova 22:30, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :They are indeed a 'marginal' (as in towards the end) party. 09:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC) Vitalism? (that says it all) 11:48, April 24, 2010 (UTC) :Do you like it? I think it's vivid, horrific and over-explicit, everything a vitalist poem needs. 13:39, April 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Reminds me of you-know-which-poet-you-and-I-used-to-dislike. 17:29, April 26, 2010 (UTC) :::I still dislike his poetry, I never disliked 'him'. Do you think Lovia could use such a figure? 07:37, April 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::Lovia can use all kinds of people. 11:54, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Chart Very Nice chart it's P.E.G's but pimped out, nice work home dog!;]Marcus Villanova 13:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I did indeed use Percival's chart as a base. In stead of comparing candidates (I already know who I'll vote for) I wanted to see what Congress will be like. Tow remarks however: (1) I'm not sure Hannis will stay MOTC since he's mm.. missing? (2) Not all seven candidates will become MOTC, I'll probably set the number to six - that way we will have 15 MOTC (if Hannis leaves). 13:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I think Hannis already resigned or in the essence check Dimi's talk page it's somwhere there.Marcus Villanova 13:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I'll update my chart from time to time so I'll alter it after the mid-terms ;-) 14:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Did you create that stream? Pierlot McCrooke 14:55, May 16, 2010 (UTC) :Nope. It's temporary, I'm trying to figure out how to do so myself. 14:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC) MR I like your Market research proposal thingie Jon Johnson 10:03, May 28, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks. It's just a trial version, I'm hoping to use my newly earned university knowledge to generate a small but interesting questionnaire. Three questions should be OK, but I still need to tune the answers (and their 'weight') a bit. 10:31, May 28, 2010 (UTC) ::it might be useful to diversify the options a bit more, i think. 07:13, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I tried to do so but that resulted in major flaws. All options need to be strictly outlined and can't overlap (that's English?!). It is better to have one opinion falling out than having four filled in wrong. As I said: still tuning the thing. 07:17, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Nice chart Interesting chart, mate! 14:53, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Gay unnatural? Actually I've read several pieces on it and I know many animals are actually very often gay.. The main reason against homosexuality brought forward by the Church is that it's against the vocation of the two sexes. (or genders in this case?) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :(Sexes . Though I must note (to Yuri) that "gender" and "sex" are in informal speech interchangeable.) 15:00, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::I'll handle the vocation of sexes (and the fact that it is used to justify gender) in the social part. So don't worry, I'll tackle the entire statement of the church. @Dimitri: since when are scientific opinions formulated in informal speech? 15:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::They are not. But thís is informal speech 15:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, I think the absolute minimum required is the use of a correct terminology. 15:34, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::Correct terminology is a creation of essayist and people doing their Ph.D. Linguists would agree that language is never "correct" or "incorrect". 15:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I never said the meanings had to be static, but to have a decent conversation the communicators need to agree upon which word reflects which content. Otherwise (successful) conversation is impossible. Now don't try to outsmart me on this one or I'll start quoting my dear friend Umberto here. And that's a treat! 15:51, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Umberto, Umberto! You're right in saying that people need to know what "federale kieskring" or "gender/sex" mean when formally discussing state reform or gender studies/women's rights/etc. We are however not engaged in any of this. Of course, there's no reason nót to try to do it properly already 15:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Reformulating your sentence in informal language (result after being passed on for twenty years): ::::::::Some guy, big name! Yo man, ye are right'o. Da hood needs to be down with da slang when chibbering with us brothers. But we aint no old-school. You know what I mean, big dog? ::::::::I prefer trying to use properly defined words, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood. Big dog. 16:03, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::My friend Umberto! Yo! 16:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Over correct taalgebruik gesproken... Dimitri, it's not correct in English to stress words by a accent aigu, like we do in Dutch. I noticed you do that often. (Call me a miereneuker if you want to ) SjorskingmaWikistad 18:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Titoism Is the position of Titoïsm fully correct placed? I do still think that it might be a bit more leftist, don't you think? Jon Johnson 22:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :As I said: the left-right axis is supposed to represent the ideological strictness in the economic perspective. Considering 'the third way' and investments of the west I think it is fairly correct. Also do note that you are ought to situate it somewhere within the ellipse rather than seeing Titoism as the ellipse itself. I hope this clears things out. 06:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::I still think that unless it has to be seen within the ellipse that it might move a bit, since Tito had some great left ideas. In fact he pointed out things very well, he knew his economy ought to be well structured to make a chance between the two major forces at the time. The third way does not directly mean stuck in the middle I think Jon Johnson 08:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :::I know, but the respective distances seem alright, don't you think so? I had to figure out a way to represent all these systems without them all overlapping. In the middle of the axis doesn't mean 'in the middle between hard-ass communism and liberal market' it mean being in between those on one third of the first and two third of the second. It's not a linear axis you see. 08:24, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::I know but it's probably too difficult to put al these socialist views on two axes, it very complicated Jon Johnson 10:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::True, though this is a decent analysis. Just make sure to read the comments I will write, they will clear out a lot. 10:36, June 1, 2010 (UTC) Current Sandpit acts I like, no Love them. Here in the US The minium Wage is only $7.00 an hour, I'm glad to see the proposal is talking about $14.00. Also i like the fact that social secrurity might include Health Care/Universal in it! I love this bill, ! Marcus Villanova Walden 13:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC) :It's going to be a real monster bill, comprising all kinds of social benefits and protections. It wont have actual implications for us Lovians but is makes things more real. PS: I base myself on models of Northwestern Europe (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, UK and France) so it will generally be better than the US policies. 14:19, September 11, 2010 (UTC) :Damn Fucking right! Marcus Villanova Walden 14:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC) Pension I suggest not too make the pension higher than 55. Why? There are two reasons: #Most people in the Netherlands don't even reach 65 and therefore pay their entire life for nothing. #Lovia has much youth, so we don't have a specific need to put in high. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:38, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :I was thinking of breaking all records, so we are one the same channel here. 09:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :: :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC) Comments on social legislation Should we not propose the labor law, seems very good. Can't wait for the Social Security/Health Care/Pension/ Assistance bill!!! !Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:32, December 11, 2010 (UTC) :Glad to see your enthusiasm. I'd however wait until it is all finished before putting anything to a vote. I slowed down a bit due to school things (writing exercises, things to read, examinations coming up). Near the end of January I'll probably be on this again. In the mean time, all suggestions are welcome. 12:26, December 12, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm definitely in support of labor legislation as well! Martha Van Ghent 16:06, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :::This will be for the new Congress to vote on. 16:07, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :Good! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC) Don't forget you passed a Laborers' Act in 2008. Perhaps it'd be best to incorporate that in the big Labor Law? 11:44, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :I know, working on it. Give me some time man, this is huge. 11:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC) ::Of course man . I'm very happy you're doing this. The sort of thing I can't tackle. I was just reminding you :) 11:48, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :::It is a hell of a job but I got it all worked out on paper now. Wait until you see the 'kaderwet' (still not translated!). She's a real beauty compared to the two monsters up above. 11:49, January 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::I tried to describe what it is in TNCT, but I can't find a proper translation either. 11:52, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :::::Well, just find a nice sounding name . "Tax Outline Act" or something of the kind. 11:56, January 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::::It is something only known in Dutch/German if I follow wikipedia. I'll read TNCT. 12:00, January 16, 2011 (UTC) There's no stopping you, is there? =) You can count on our support (after I've read it thoroughly of course) Martha Van Ghent 13:26, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :This will become the beating heart of the Lovian community (I hope). 13:31, January 16, 2011 (UTC) ::Good you're doing this cause it's not an easy task :) Martha Van Ghent 13:35, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :::Great job, Yuri. The only things I'd recommend changing are minor clarifications: ::::Employment Contract :::::1.2.4 – What is a “valid subject and a lawful cause”? :::::1.3.5.1 – “the payment of a financial compensation can be imposed on the party responsible for the failure.” Who is compensated? The employee? It should be clarified. ::::Working Hours :::::1.1.2 – “All labor performed between 8 p.m. and six a.m. is regarded as night labor.” The words “between” and “and” should be changed to “from” and “to”, so that there’s no confusion. ::::Employment Conditions :::::2, 3, 4 – There is no punishment should these conditions not be met. :::Those are my two cents. Edward Hannis 17:24, January 16, 2011 (UTC) :First let me say these are very helpful comments, the kind I like to read. Okay, I'll change where necessary and try to explain if needed: :* The 'valid subject' and 'lawful cause' are general terms in legislation. 'No invalid subject' means that party A and B can not make a contract on an action party C should perform (C is an invalid subject). 'A lawful cause' means that party A can not employ party B as let's say a serial killer, since the job of serial killer involves violating the law (serial killer is an unlawful cause for an employment contract). :* The financial compensation goes to the one who wasn't responsible for the fault. I'll add it to the bill. :* The labor hours: an error indeed. I'll fix that one too. :* The labor law contains the determinations one has to follow. I put the punishment mechanism in the second bill (with social security). The Agency for Labor Inspection will have to make sure every employee/employer follows the conditions put forth in the Labor Law Act. If a violation takes place, the Agency or any involved party can take it to court. : 08:48, January 17, 2011 (UTC) ::I had the same question about "lawful cause". I have another question too: first line defines the right to work (legally) by engaging in an employment contract. It says nothing on "foresee in his own income in any other way". What I want to say is this: perhaps you should include the words "and only", so: :::"Every adult Lovian has the right to foresee in his own income by engaging in an employment contract, and in no other way." ::Or something like that. Martha Van Ghent 10:28, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :::A bit nasty for all the self-employed people, or those who live from renting houses etc. The bill serves to legally protect workers, I assume self-employed people wont try to exploit themselves. 10:33, January 17, 2011 (UTC) ::::Ah yes, didn't think of that. But still - your version of the bill would not outlaw uncontracted labor then, would it? Martha Van Ghent 10:35, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :::::Nope, and that can be exploited indeed. I'll think of a way to rephrase this, good work. 10:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC) ::::::You're welcome. I'm still reading the rest Martha Van Ghent 10:45, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :::::::It's fixed. Keep on giving feedback, I will have missed a lot of other things too. 10:47, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :Got around to reading the Social Security Act. Here are my remarks: ::Section 2 – Commas between organizations and the word "which" should be used. ::Section 3.1.2 – "He" should be changed to "he or she". ::Section 3.2 – It should be clarified if the worker should re-enter the job market, if this benefit will end. ::Section 3.3.1 – What is reasonable effort? Is there a punishment if not achieved? ::Section 3.5.2 – The minimum should be raised for every child in the family below the age of 16. :That's all I've got to say. Good job, Yuri. Edward Hannis 18:24, January 17, 2011 (UTC) ::I fixed the first two issues, as well as the last one. The other two I will clarify: ::* Section 3.2: the bill states that a person can only enjoy the benefit as long as he/she is obstructed from participating in the labor market by a physical or mental condition. If you re-enter the job market you can clearly be no longer obstructed (the one excludes the other) and thus you are no longer entitled to the benefit. ::* Section 3.3.1: I choose 'reasonable effort' because any specified actions would be very random anyway. It is up to the state-provided social assistance to guide the unemployed and follow up if they are really trying. It also states the receiver of the benefit is obliged to undertake the effort, making the receiver punishable (breaking the law, see determination of social fraud 2.3.1-3) if he/she does not really try. :: Thanks for checking! 12:35, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Nice new focal bill! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.PCP 14:57, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Reformist League Hmm, a group dedicated to equality in a nation where there is generally complete equality. I'll have to see how this develops, I hope this isn't the creation of a non-issue like the whole 1% thing Marcus tried to raise. But in will of the good faith policy, I look forwards to developments and possible membership if this is a society dedicated to true equality and a stand against discrimination. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:02, August 18, 2013 (UTC) :There are of course no real statistics for Lovia, but even the most exemplary nations of this world have a lot of issues. Sometimes the inequality is economic in nature: differences in income related to gender or the exploitation of illegal aliens. In other instances it is a cultural/social issue: discrimination based on sexuality or skin color, the position of homeless/propertyless people. (In my own Belgium we suffer the same wave of anti-other rhetoric that is paralyzing most of Europe - wrapped up in a lot of responsibility nonsense. The reason? An attempt to divert the cost of crisis to the weaker groups in society. Sadly, liberals hardly stand up to this...) :The goal of the League is to promote reform - political, legal, and in the cultural sphere - to achieve yet more equality. The idea is to emancipate individuals/groups, to hand them the tools needed to exercise more fully their citizenship. For me this is always the core issue, never a non-issue. When a society is organized, it knows hierarchies. And where there are hierarchies, emancipation is paramount. 06:56, August 19, 2013 (UTC)